- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 14:09:22 +0200
- To: Jesse Weaver <weavej3@rpi.edu>
- Cc: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Jesse, - There is no formal resolution on containers yet. There has been some discussions, and deprecating containers has indeed been raised as one of the candidates. - However, your usage of rdfs:member v.a.v. lists (a.k.a. collections) is a slightly different question. At them moment, there is no semantic relationships in RDFS between the terms used for lists (rdf:first, rdf:next, or rdf:List) and rdfs:member. Put it another way if I have <a> <b> (<c> <d> <e>) . I cannot infer something like <c> rdfs:member _:a . # _:a is the 'head' of the list above. I may have misunderstood what you said, though. Ivan On Aug 26, 2011, at 20:59 , Jesse Weaver wrote: > Hello RDF working group. > > Has there been consensus concerning deprecation of RDF containers in 1.1? > Specifically, I am curious about the rdfs:member property. It is very > useful for stating membership of something in a uniform way (unlike using > rdf:_1, rdf:_2, ...) and in a single triple (unlike using rdf:first and > rdf:rest). I am well aware of the distinction between containers and > collections, but it seems that RDF really needs something as simple as > rdfs:member. > > Please let me know. > > Thank you. > > Jesse Weaver > Ph.D. Student, Patroon Fellow > Tetherless World Constellation > Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute > http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~weavej3/ > > > > > ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Monday, 29 August 2011 12:07:52 UTC